Could somebody please explain how new thinner Starboard designs can be as strong as more tradional, and thicker, boards? Are they safe for jumping, or 'clattery' chop blasting? Are they kikely to snap in half if 'pushed'? One thousand pounds plus is too much money to be experimenting with.

So. No answer then. Do I assume that it's a case of wait and see because the customers will be used as the guinea pigs? Having been bitten once before, I won't [in the absence of proof to the contrary} fall for that one again! Unless there is some radical strengthening inside, it's hard to see how a thinner board can stand up to the constant pounding and thumping of the rig, through the mast foot. [It's almost a point loading right in the middle of the board,and in the absence of a shock absorber there's quite a lot of inertia to absorb.] I hope I'm wrong - but?

I think the lack of initial response is because it sounds like strange question to ask (not being rude there). I am sure that SB customers are not used as experimental guinee pigs. But I'd guess that SB would heavily test all there boards before putting them on market. My "thin" iSonic hasn't snapped as yet and I don't expect it will either (i'm 105kg). Plus I've not heard of one snapping in two either. Your money sure is safe in buying a next gen thin board

The issue of the rig "pounding" the board is not affected much by the thickness of the board. It's more a matter of having a good connection between the mast box and the top laminate so the forces are distributed through the deck. But when it comes to a pure flat landing from a high jump, a thicker board will hold up better if everything else is the same. But when it comes to wave boards the Starboard have been rather fin for many years and have the lowest warranty rates. And if you think of a board like the Atom, it is still not THAT thin in the middle where a pure flat landing would break it. And like with any boards, the construction is a careful compromise between low weight and the best possible strength.

If you think about the slalom boards, like the iSonics and especially the 86 slim, they have a concave deck profile that actually adds stiffness to the board.

Thank you for the replies. I take your point Ola, that an extra laminate will help spread the shock loading from the mast foot. While flat landings need to be avoided, unfortunately, us intermediates are sometimes caught out. As you say, all else being equal, a thicker board will be more resistant. I'm still using an original Evo 74, [amongst others], so it would be more sensible for me to replace it with a newer version of the same. Once again thank's.

While flat landings need to be avoided, unfortunately, us intermediates are sometimes caught out. As you say, all else being equal, a thicker board will be more resistant. I'm still using an original Evo 74, [amongst others], so it would be more sensible for me to replace it with a newer version of the same. Once again thank's.

I would not be worried about thickness: impact and compression resistance are not effected by the thickness of the (3") soft inner core, nor by the thickness of the denser-foamed mastbox: lamination material and its thickness (a few millimeters) are by far the main factors.

Longitudinal stiffness is, in theory, effected by thickness, but other factors are at play there (lamination, core, stiffeners, shape, etc..).

I accept that thinner boards can be strong, but it raises another issue. My original Evo 74 has lasted because it is heavy and, presumably, strongly built. [ Did Starboard over build them because they were takinf things in a new direction and wished to avoid negative feedback?] ------ The general trend since, however, has been for ever lighter boards. [Including Evos.] This is where my main concern lies. You can have a light fragile board, or a heavier durable board, but you CAN'T have a lighter stronger board. Carbon may be stronger than steel weight for weight, but it is used to lighten boards. NOBODY MAKES A HEAVIER MORE DURABLE CARBON BOARD. Why not? I would buy one!